I thought Obama was putting Science back in charge?

[kiryan]

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/06/26 ... 7890.shtml

[avak]

The EPA also said in its statement: "The individual in question is not a scientist and was not part of the working group dealing with this issue. Nevertheless the document he submitted was reviewed by his peers and agency scientists, and information from that report was submitted by his manager to those responsible for developing the proposed endangerment finding. In fact, some ideas from that document are included and addressed in the endangerment finding."

Alan Carlin - Senior Economist, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, 1971 to present

[kiryan]

Carlin has an undergraduate degree in physics from CalTech and a PhD in economics from MIT. His Web site lists papers about the environment and public policy dating back to 1964, spanning topics from pollution control to environmentally-responsible energy pricing.

After reviewing the scientific literature that the EPA is relying on, Carlin said, he concluded that it was at least three years out of date and did not reflect the latest research. "My personal view is that there is not currently any reason to regulate (carbon dioxide)," he said. "There may be in the future. But global temperatures are roughly where they were in the mid-20th century. They're not going up, and if anything they're going down."

--

so thats a very strong point avak. I remember reading and thats why I wasn't going to post however a few days later I forgot and went ahead.

In his defense though, technical his title may not be scientist, it appears he knows a lot about the issues. The article states gives a pretty good indication that he has been at least a student of climate for 30 years which gives him perspective that the majority of "scientists" probably don't have. Also, having a phd in economics means he is very very good with numbers and analysis. His central argument is that the rules proposed and the findings were not supported by the data.

The bigger story is obviously that he felt he was at risk of losing his job for putting out a report critical of the current administrations policy, and that the report was suppressed purely because it didn't support the proper conclusion. The article does mention the official response from the EPA was that the report was considered and basically rejected by the working group. Which one is the truth? The email or the official statement and what does it say about the agencies committment to putting science first if his manager (and he's already a director) is personally making decisions about whether to forward a report?

[teflor the ranger]

It's not exactly a surprise that reports and observations critical of the agency's official position are suppressed all the time. There are a lot of people at the EPA and they are bound to find evidence that makes the agency's claims difficult to make and it is rare to find a political appointee that values the values-neutral approach to reporting on scientific research.

Let me make this clear. The EPA is not a scientific organization and it is not led by science. Politics are in charge. The modern scientific process demands that, in any organization where science is in charge, that all observations are reported, both those that support your theory and those that do not.

[avak]

If the EPA was so good at suppressing information then why can I link directly to his comments?

Also, here is a scientific response to his claims: Bubkes

And finally, if you read the email correspondence it seems clear enough to me. The EPA was working on a deadline and on a specific aspect of policy. Again, he is an economist...his superior (also an economist) directly tells him to work on the projects he was assigned to do. He also points out the 66% budget cut they just got and the fact that Carlin needs to get the critical work done and not waste taxpayer money doing research that clearly belies a personal agenda.

Is it coincidence that this 'suppression scandal' was plastered all over the media by the Competitive Enterprise Institute? The same group that has this to say about the issue Carlin was 'reprimanded' for:

CEI advises EPA not to adopt its Endangerment Proposal as a final rule. The science presented in the proposal and TSD is highly selective, ignoring the research, arguments, and assessments of so-called climate skeptics. EPA may regard the skeptics as quibblers or worse, but ignoring an argument does not refute it. Absent a serious consideration of opposing viewpoints, the public cannot have confidence in EPA’s conclusions.

[kiryan]

Ok I concede this one. Damn those conservative rags making me look like a fool!